logo
With REAL ID, America Now Has National ID Cards and Internal Passports

With REAL ID, America Now Has National ID Cards and Internal Passports

Yahoo23-05-2025

I don't have a REAL ID–compliant driver's license and don't plan to get one. I figure if the federal government wants to implement internal passports in the U.S., which after 20 years of political and legal battles is now happening, we might as well be honest about it and use actual passports. So, from now on, I'll enter the secure areas of airports and federal buildings with my actual passport, which is good for travel both external and internal to the U.S. Or we could call REAL ID–compliant licenses, which must adhere to federal standards, "national ID cards." A little honesty is a good thing.
"The United States is getting a national ID card," security expert Bruce Schneier wrote in 2005 when the REAL ID Act was passed. "The REAL ID Act … establishes uniform standards for state driver's licenses, effectively creating a national ID card. It's a bad idea, and is going to make us all less safe."
The federal government denies that REAL ID means we all now have to carry national identification cards. Sort of. In 2007, after the REAL ID Act had been enacted but in the midst of state refusal to implement the law and popular opposition, then-Sen. Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.) conceded the nature of the beast. "It may be that we need a national identification card," he commented on the floor of the Senate. "I've always been opposed to that. We live in a different era now."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) still denies that standardized identification documents required by the U.S. government for domestic air travel and entrance to federal facilities are national ID.
"REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card," DHS insists in a FAQ. "REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances."
That's true-ish, but beside the point. The REAL ID Act set minimum standards for the information contained in an identification card, the conditions (such as citizenship or legal residency) qualifying a person to receive a card, and for the documentation that must be presented for an application. The law also prescribes that information be presented on identification cards in "a common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements." That common technology is helpful since the law also requires that ID issuers "provide electronic access to all other States to information." Data is mostly shared through the State-to-State Verification Service, which links those different databases.
Everything besides that is just cosmetic. That includes the names of issuing states, color schemes, and background imagery. They may make ID cards look different from issuing state to issuing state, but they're all interchangeable, with shareable data.
And none of this is going to make us safer—which was the justification for the law.
"All but one of the Sept. 11 hijackers carried government IDs that helped them board planes and remain in the country illegally," DHS then-Secretary Michael Chertoff complained in 2008 amidst debates over REAL ID and refusals by some states to comply.
But most people with fake driver's licenses don't acquire them by walking up to a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk with a pleasant smile and a note from mom. Instead, they buy them from corrupt officials.
"The manager of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles office at Springfield Mall was charged yesterday with selling driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and others for up to $3,500 apiece," The Washington Post's Jerry Markon reported in 2005. That was "the second time in two years that a Northern Virginia DMV employee was accused of fraudulently selling licenses for cash."
If corrupt officials are bypassing normal bureaucratic procedures to issue fraudulent identification documents, standardizing those documents across the nation won't fix the problem. But it could create the illusion of enhanced security. And it will create that illusion even as all that standardized data is placed in linked databases that actually enable identity fraud.
"The massive amounts of personal information that would be stored in State databases that are to be shared electronically with other States, as well as unencrypted data on the card, could provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves," then-Sen. Daniel Akaka (D–Hawaii) warned during committee hearings on the REAL ID Act. "REAL ID may make us less secure by giving us a false sense of security."
Yes, government officials argue that their agencies' database security is super-secure. They would never let hackers go browsing through their records for interesting information or for the makings of new identities. But these are the same officials who regularly hand vast quantities of sensitive records to foreign hackers (think of the Office of Personnel Management data breaches) or to aggrieved workers (as with some IRS records leaks). There may, in fact, be nothing less secure than a secure government database.
Perhaps the worst part, though, is that national IDs and internal passports as embodied in REAL ID add to the expectation that we must prove our identities on demand to the satisfaction of government officials. REAL ID makes it ever easier to insist that we produce papers containing standardized information to engage in everyday activities.
"A national identity system works against the interests of free people and a free society in several ways," Jim Harper wrote in 2018 for the Cato Institute. "A national ID system undercuts the important background privacy protection of practical obscurity: the difficulty of learning about people when records are not created or when data are difficult to access or interpret."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Alexis Hancock emphasizes that 20 years of delays in implementing REAL ID have done the U.S. no harm, while the arrival of standardized national ID has real risks. Hancock helpfully points to a number of physical and electronic documents that can be used in the place of REAL ID–compliant identification to fly and to enter federal facilities.
Passports are on that list, and that's what I'm sticking with. That it's now used as a standardized internal passport and national ID card is exactly the point I'm making every time I'm required to present it so I can go about my business.
The post With REAL ID, America Now Has National ID Cards and Internal Passports appeared first on Reason.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools , churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey , alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision . Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates
Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Two House Republicans issue megabill threats as Senate ponders changes - Live Updates

Two House Republicans drew firm red lines Friday on changes to the House GOP megabill, threatening to vote 'no' if the Senate made any changes whatsoever to key provisions. Rep. Nick LaLota of New York warned GOP senators against lowering the House's $40,000 cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction, while Rep. Chip Roy of Texas vowed to oppose any attempt to delay or otherwise water down the phaseout of clean-energy tax credits provided for in the House-passed megabill. 'If the Senate waters it down by a dollar, I'm a no,' LaLota posted on X, arguing that the SALT cap as it stands is 'unfair' to his constituents. Roy was equally strict about GOP senators' hesitations on quickly phasing out clean-energy tax credits signed into law under former President Joe Biden — even calling out skeptical Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) by name in a floor speech Friday. Tillis has been critical of the phaseouts, saying the House bill is 'void of any understanding of just how these supply chains work.' 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Roy said. 'Because those god-forsaken subsidies are killing our energy, killing our grid, making us weaker, destroying our landscape, undermining our freedom. I'm not going to have it.'

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown

As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. States split on whether to aid or resist Trump Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Legislation supporting immigrants takes a variety of forms Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Many new measures reinforce existing policies Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.' ___ Associated Press writers Susan Haigh, Trân Nguyễn, Jesse Bedayn, John O'Connor and Brian Witte contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store